Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > can we all just agree that homosexuality is not normal?

can we all just agree that homosexuality is not normal? (Page 2)
Thread Tools
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 3, 2007, 06:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by wolfen View Post
Split uvula (I have one).
Cough up some evidence.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 3, 2007, 07:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
If anyone has latent homosexual tendencies, it's Kirk.

He was always a big 'mo for Spock.








What?
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: On this side of there
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 3, 2007, 07:58 PM
 
Do you want forgiveness or respect?
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 3, 2007, 08:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by Helmling View Post
Because in that case we have documented homosexual behavior patterns in just about any mammal species.
We also have documented cases of mothers becoming stimulated by prey and eating their own young. Is eating your children normal by your definition? How about eating your own feces? Is that normal?

Really, I think we should all just stop fussing over other people's sex lives. Dear lord, isn't there something more important out there for us to worry about as a people?
Something to agree about for sure.
ebuddy
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 3, 2007, 09:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by smacintush View Post

I always hate this example. This shows only that it is natural only in the sense that any other disorder is "natural".
Who says they're disorders? My point is that we now have solid evidence that evolution has selected for homosexual behavior as part of our behavioral programming. i.e. gays are good for the species as a whole.

Maybe the other "disorders" like depression are too.
     
Senior User
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Lost in Thought
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 3, 2007, 10:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
How about eating your own feces? Is that normal?
For some animals, yes.
Little children are savages. They are paleolithic creatures.
- E. O. Wilson
     
Senior User
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Lost in Thought
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 3, 2007, 10:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by Helmling View Post
Who says they're disorders? My point is that we now have solid evidence that evolution has selected for homosexual behavior as part of our behavioral programming. i.e. gays are good for the species as a whole.
This isn't how evolution works. You are confused about E.O. Wilson's theory, which has nothing to do with group selection and everything to do kin selection. Also, it's generally agreed that his idea is incorrect.

Originally Posted by Helmling View Post
Maybe the other "disorders" like depression are too.
I suspect you are at least partially right, however, I think the modern environment creates depression that is 'unnaturally' severe.
Little children are savages. They are paleolithic creatures.
- E. O. Wilson
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 3, 2007, 10:52 PM
 
Gays are perverted just like Pedaphiles and all other perverted queers.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 3, 2007, 11:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by aristotles View Post
Of course it's not normal. The human species propagates through sexual reproduction. Let's stop walking on egg shells and playing games with words. There is a dictionary definition for normal. Is there a reason for it? Probably, but that does not make it normal (the norm).
Is it biologically "normal" to have sex using contraceptives? Is it biologically "normal" to have sex with only one partner?
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 3, 2007, 11:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
Ridiculous. The thought of that act makes me physically ill
Me too. The thought of kissing a smoker also makes me ill. As does sex with someone seriously over-weight. Should we also not allow smokers and over-weight people the same marriage rights as non-smokers and slim people?
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2007, 12:03 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
Me too. The thought of kissing a smoker also makes me ill. As does sex with someone seriously over-weight. Should we also not allow smokers and over-weight people the same marriage rights as non-smokers and slim people?
I agree. Queer smokers and queer fat people along with all queer's should not be alowed to get married to other queers. With the exception, if a queer man wants to marry a queer lady or I suppose even a queer lady and a queer man. Who cares.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2007, 12:05 AM
 
Hey, are we allowed to say faq in here?
     
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: retired
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2007, 01:23 AM
 
National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws or NORML.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NORML
     
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2007, 01:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
Is it biologically "normal" to have sex using contraceptives? Is it biologically "normal" to have sex with only one partner?
Is it normal to change the subject when confronted with something you have no rebuttal for? Moving goal posts will not help your cause.
--
Aristotle
15" rMBP 2.7 Ghz ,16GB, 768GB SSD, 64GB iPhone 5 S⃣ 128GB iPad Air LTE
     
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2007, 01:50 AM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
If anyone has latent homosexual tendencies, it's Kirk.
If anyone has latent homosexual tendencies, it's the entire Anglo-Saxon culture. What is up with you Anglos? Why are you so screwed up and repressed? The Victorian era did a real number on you people. On the one hand, you get all weird when people bring up sex and on the other, your minds are in the gutter all the time.

Your attitudes towards social interaction is as messed up as McCarthyism. Instead of thinking you see communist under every bed, you think everyone who does not measure up to your narrow definitions is either gay or something else. Grow up for crying out loud and spend your efforts on living your own lives rather than looking at what everyone else is doing.
/END of RANT

I've thought about moving back to my old homeland at times to get away from all of you freaky bastards.
--
Aristotle
15" rMBP 2.7 Ghz ,16GB, 768GB SSD, 64GB iPhone 5 S⃣ 128GB iPad Air LTE
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2007, 01:54 AM
 
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: retired
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2007, 02:04 AM
 
Originally Posted by Buckaroo View Post
Gays are perverted just like Pedaphiles and all other perverted queers.
The nic Buckeroo sounds kinda gayish Bareback Mountainish.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2007, 02:16 AM
 
Originally Posted by Atomic Rooster View Post
The nic Buckeroo sounds kinda gayish Bareback Mountainish.
I didn't see that movie. Was there something I missed? I thought the nick was cool because of the way Sean Connery said it in The Hunt for Red October.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2007, 02:23 AM
 
Originally Posted by aristotles View Post
If anyone has latent homosexual tendencies, it's the entire Anglo-Saxon culture. What is up with you Anglos? Why are you so screwed up and repressed? The Victorian era did a real number on you people. On the one hand, you get all weird when people bring up sex and on the other, your minds are in the gutter all the time.

Your attitudes towards social interaction is as messed up as McCarthyism. Instead of thinking you see communist under every bed, you think everyone who does not measure up to your narrow definitions is either gay or something else. Grow up for crying out loud and spend your efforts on living your own lives rather than looking at what everyone else is doing.
/END of RANT

I've thought about moving back to my old homeland at times to get away from all of you freaky bastards.
The real problem is not that we have any problem with people and what they do in the privacy of their home. What we have a problem with is the in your face you have to be part of the preverted lifestyle.

I never had any ill feelings towards queers when I didn't have to hear about it every single friken day. Now you can't go a day without some flaming queer pushing their lifestyle, or wanting special rights, etc.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2007, 10:09 AM
 
Because they still haven't been given them, it's still a struggle for them.

You might have been saying the same thing when women and blacks wanted equal rights if you were around.


When we have stupid knuckledraggers like our current president who will veto bills that want to expand the definition of hate crimes to include sexual orientation, we take two steps back in them "getting out of your face", as long as they are considered lesser beings in our society.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2007, 10:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by Helmling View Post
Who says they're disorders? My point is that we now have solid evidence that evolution has selected for homosexual behavior as part of our behavioral programming. i.e. gays are good for the species as a whole.

Maybe the other "disorders" like depression are too.
Part of my deal is that I have a problem with the way that the modern medicine refers to everything as a disorder. I am beginning to wonder if the word "disorder" doesn't mean "we don't really know what the hell is going on so let's all say that this is abnormal."

So I guess what I'm saying is that while I personally don't really believe that being gay should be called a disorder, by the modern medical definition it certainly fits. Think of it this way: If a person is born with the tendency to behave in a way that hurts someone, we have NO problem calling it a disorder or sickness or whatever. However, if a person is born with the tendency to be attracted to the same gender, we don't want to give it such a negative connotation though it's really the same thing.

So either we need to start referring to homosexuality as a disorder, or we need to rethink the term disorder. (either one works for me)
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2007, 10:27 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
When we have stupid knuckledraggers like our current president who will veto bills that want to expand the definition of hate crimes to include sexual orientation, we take two steps back in them "getting out of your face", as long as they are considered lesser beings in our society.
I don't think that we should expand the definition either, I think we should repeal all hate crime related laws and remove the term from our vernacular.
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2007, 11:23 AM
 
Originally Posted by smacintush View Post
Part of my deal is that I have a problem with the way that the modern medicine refers to everything as a disorder. I am beginning to wonder if the word "disorder" doesn't mean "we don't really know what the hell is going on so let's all say that this is abnormal."

So I guess what I'm saying is that while I personally don't really believe that being gay should be called a disorder, by the modern medical definition it certainly fits. Think of it this way: If a person is born with the tendency to behave in a way that hurts someone, we have NO problem calling it a disorder or sickness or whatever. However, if a person is born with the tendency to be attracted to the same gender, we don't want to give it such a negative connotation though it's really the same thing.

So either we need to start referring to homosexuality as a disorder, or we need to rethink the term disorder. (either one works for me)
Making the analogy that a person born with the tendency to hurt someone and a person born with the tendency to being attracted to a same gendered-person are both disordered is a specious analogy. A person born with the tendency to be attracted to the same gender hurts no one, so it is far from the same thing.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2007, 11:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by Buckaroo View Post
The real problem is not that we have any problem with people and what they do in the privacy of their home. What we have a problem with is the in your face you have to be part of the preverted lifestyle.

I never had any ill feelings towards queers when I didn't have to hear about it every single friken day. Now you can't go a day without some flaming queer pushing their lifestyle, or wanting special rights, etc.
For the umpteenth time, no one is asking for "special rights." They are asking for the same rights that you and I have; a right to live a peaceful, happy and productive life, without someone shoving their viewpoint in our faces. The "special rights" argument is specious. Just because you see something on the news about gays and lesbians doesn't mean you have to feel threatened, which is quite obviously what you feel, as evidenced by your choice of words, like "perverted," and "flaming queer." Many felt the same way when those "colored people" got all uppity and were in "in your face" with their demands for "special rights." (There are people today who still feel that way about blacks). The way you phrase your argument and the words you use to describe gays indicates a lot about how (irrationally) threatened you feel about the gay rights movement.

No one wants to convert you. They just want the same rights, not "special" ones.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Back in the Good Ole US of A
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2007, 11:58 AM
 
^^^ KarlG, don't bother with Buckaroo. He has no interest in trying to understand why gays have a rights movement in the first place. He's obviously threatened by the idea of homosexuality and is unlikely to change his mind. You just have to write people like that off and hope that his ideologies don't spread too far (let's hope he doesn't breed).
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2007, 12:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by smacintush View Post
I don't think that we should expand the definition either, I think we should repeal all hate crime related laws and remove the term from our vernacular.
Why's that?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2007, 12:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by KarlG View Post
A person born with the tendency to be attracted to the same gender hurts no one, so it is far from the same thing.
That was my point.

When it hurts someone, it's a "disorder" or some other negative-sounding word. When it's victimless, it's "just how they are".

Physiologically we have two separate people born with behavioral tendencies that "deviate from the mean", yet we change the terminology to suit our phony political/social ideals.
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2007, 12:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by Atheist View Post
^^^ KarlG, don't bother with Buckaroo. He has no interest in trying to understand. He's obviously threatened by ideas and is unlikely to change his mind. You just have to write people like that off and hope that his ideologies don't spread too far (let's hope he doesn't breed).
Adjusted for truth.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2007, 12:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Why's that?
Because I'm one of those people who doesn't think that it is healthy or necessary to make such distinctions.
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2007, 12:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by smacintush View Post
That was my point.

When it hurts someone, it's a "disorder" or some other negative-sounding word. When it's victimless, it's "just how they are".

Physiologically we have two separate people born with behavioral tendencies that "deviate from the mean", yet we change the terminology to suit our phony political/social ideals.
We change the terminology to distinguish between socially compatible and dangerous deviations.

It's the exact same phenomenon that allows us to distinguish "murder" from "self-defense" and "art" from "vandalism", etc.

If you think that's catering to "phony political/social ideals", then I can only assume that you have a LOT of trouble dealing with society, and vice versa.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2007, 12:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
We also have documented cases of mothers becoming stimulated by prey and eating their own young. Is eating your children normal by your definition? How about eating your own feces? Is that normal?
I saw gorillas eating vomit at the zoo a couple months back. And yeah, animals eat their young all the time. Evidence shows that mother's bodies react to pregnancy something like they do to an infection. Evolution has set up an interplay between the need to reproduce and the individual's continuity (presumably to reproduce more in the future) and consuming one's own young is one way to recoup lost resources during lean times. Better the animal survive and have three more offspring in the future than die rather than eat one now.

So, I guess that's "normal" from one prespective.

My point in all this is that "normal" is such a loaded term that really has so little actual denotative value that it's not worth using in any discussion about homosexuality.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2007, 12:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by smacintush View Post
Part of my deal is that I have a problem with the way that the modern medicine refers to everything as a disorder. I am beginning to wonder if the word "disorder" doesn't mean "we don't really know what the hell is going on so let's all say that this is abnormal."

So I guess what I'm saying is that while I personally don't really believe that being gay should be called a disorder, by the modern medical definition it certainly fits. Think of it this way: If a person is born with the tendency to behave in a way that hurts someone, we have NO problem calling it a disorder or sickness or whatever. However, if a person is born with the tendency to be attracted to the same gender, we don't want to give it such a negative connotation though it's really the same thing.

So either we need to start referring to homosexuality as a disorder, or we need to rethink the term disorder. (either one works for me)
I think we're clinic-sizing and medicating personality.

I fear what becomes of this social trend when we have the power to engineer people's behavioral genetics. A world of bland clones who buy, buy, buy, spend, spend, spend...

It's almost as if I've read some visionary novel that predicts exactly that.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2007, 12:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by smacintush View Post
Part of my deal is that I have a problem with the way that the modern medicine refers to everything as a disorder. I am beginning to wonder if the word "disorder" doesn't mean "we don't really know what the hell is going on so let's all say that this is abnormal."

So I guess what I'm saying is that while I personally don't really believe that being gay should be called a disorder, by the modern medical definition it certainly fits. Think of it this way: If a person is born with the tendency to behave in a way that hurts someone, we have NO problem calling it a disorder or sickness or whatever. However, if a person is born with the tendency to be attracted to the same gender, we don't want to give it such a negative connotation though it's really the same thing.

So either we need to start referring to homosexuality as a disorder, or we need to rethink the term disorder. (either one works for me)
There are a few psychiatrists who agree with you. Look up Thomas Szasz, for example.

But my response is that it's not really about terminology. It's about trying to alleviate genuine suffering and trying to help people function effectively. Defining mental illness is really a meaningless intellectual exercise.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2007, 12:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by analogika View Post
We change the terminology to distinguish between socially compatible and dangerous deviations.

It's the exact same phenomenon that allows us to distinguish "murder" from "self-defense" and "art" from "vandalism", etc.
I'm not sure we are talking about the same things. You are using purely behavioral examples where I was referring to inherent tendencies. I may have to sit with that one.

If you think that's catering to "phony political/social ideals", then I can only assume that you have a LOT of trouble dealing with society, and vice versa.
No, not really.
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2007, 12:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post
There are a few psychiatrists who agree with you. Look up Thomas Szasz, for example.
I looked at his Wiki entry and I am intrigued. I'll have to look into him some more thanks!
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2007, 12:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by smacintush View Post
Because I'm one of those people who doesn't think that it is healthy or necessary to make such distinctions.
Between what? Crimes that are not hate driven vs. crimes that are?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2007, 12:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post
There are a few psychiatrists who agree with you. Look up Thomas Szasz, for example.
Szasz is an idiot. Any psychiatrist that joins forces with Scientology is a dimwit by definition.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2007, 12:57 PM
 
Actually, I'm kind of there on this one - a crime is a crime - I think a hate motivated murder should be prosecuted every bit as hard as a regular murder, but not necessarily more.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2007, 12:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Between what? Crimes that are not hate driven vs. crimes that are?
Don't be dense, you know what I mean. It's divisive, nearly impossible to prove most of the time, and it's a slippery slope.

If a man gets assaulted the charge should be assault, regardless of his race, sexual orientation etc.
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2007, 12:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Szasz is an idiot. Any psychiatrist that joins forces with Scientology is a dimwit by definition.
Scientology? Perhaps I'm not so intrigued anymore…
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2007, 12:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by Buckaroo View Post
I never had any ill feelings towards queers when I didn't have to hear about it every single friken day. Now you can't go a day without some flaming queer pushing their lifestyle, or wanting special rights, etc.
That's right: you hate gays because the gays make you hate them.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2007, 01:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by aristotles View Post
If anyone has latent homosexual tendencies, it's the entire Anglo-Saxon culture. What is up with you Anglos? Why are you so screwed up and repressed...
I'd answer your rhetorical questions if I thought broad, swiping characterizations were worth my valuation time...
Originally Posted by aristotles View Post
I've thought about moving back to my old homeland at times to get away from all of you freaky bastards.
Have a nice trip home. Don't let the door nail you in the ass on the way out.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2007, 01:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
We also have documented cases of mothers becoming stimulated by prey and eating their own young. Is eating your children normal by your definition? How about eating your own feces? Is that normal?
This is why I avoid using the animal world as "evidence" of homosexuality being normal.

A mental disorder impairs cognitive and social function. Homosexuality does not.

A moral offense causes harm and unhappiness. Homosexuality does not.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2007, 01:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by smacintush View Post
That was my point.

When it hurts someone, it's a "disorder" or some other negative-sounding word. When it's victimless, it's "just how they are".

Physiologically we have two separate people born with behavioral tendencies that "deviate from the mean", yet we change the terminology to suit our phony political/social ideals.
Similarly, when you have sex with someone and they're OK with it, it's just sex. But when you do it and they didn't really want it, it's rape. Those silly political/social ideals.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2007, 01:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Szasz is an idiot. Any psychiatrist that joins forces with Scientology is a dimwit by definition.
That would be a valid statement if it were true. Unfortunately, some seem to be unable to distinguish that, just because he and the Scientology movement have the same beliefs regarding the classification of mental illnesses, he does not endorse nor practice Scientology. Many people and groups who have dissimilar objectives often form associations to achieve common goals, without necessarily subscribing to the total goals of each others groups. Politics is an excellent example; there are gay Republicans and gay Democrats. They both have obviously different underlying political philosophies, yet there are certain goals that they both wish to achieve, so they may unite, specifically to reach their common goal. That doesn't mean they change their underlying political beliefs, and labeling them as idiots does nothing except show the lack of knowledge of the processes and reasons involved of the labeler.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2007, 01:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by Buckaroo View Post
I never had any ill feelings towards queers when I didn't have to hear about it every single friken day.
I have to hear about Christians every day, but I don't harbor any ill will towards them.

Originally Posted by Buckaroo View Post
Now you can't go a day without some flaming queer pushing their lifestyle, or wanting special rights, etc.
Actually, I go many days without a gay person trying to make me gay or asking me for special rights. Perhaps it's the places you hang out?
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2007, 01:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by smacintush View Post
Don't be dense, you know what I mean. It's divisive, nearly impossible to prove most of the time, and it's a slippery slope.

If a man gets assaulted the charge should be assault, regardless of his race, sexual orientation etc.
Of course, but that's not really the point. What if the assault was plotted based on a hatred of a race or sexual orientation? At the end of the day, assault is assault, but we ought to know that it was motivated based on a hatred so that we can link the cause to hate groups and other violent gangs. How could we do this if there was no legal way of establishing these links?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2007, 01:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Of course, but that's not really the point. What if the assault was plotted based on a hatred of a race or sexual orientation? At the end of the day, assault is assault, but we ought to know that it was motivated based on a hatred so that we can link the cause to hate groups and other violent gangs. How could we do this if there was no legal way of establishing these links?
What if the assault was plotted based on hatred of his job description, or his economic status, or his hair, or his luck with women? Should those all be separate crimes as well?
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2007, 01:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by smacintush View Post
I looked at his Wiki entry and I am intrigued. I'll have to look into him some more thanks!
OK, but I hope you get my point: Arguing about definitions like this is an abstract exercise, perfect for anti-gay bigots on the internet, but not meaningful for people trying to do the actual work of alleviating people's suffering.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2007, 01:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by KarlG View Post
That would be a valid statement if it were true. Unfortunately, some seem to be unable to distinguish that, just because he and the Scientology movement have the same beliefs regarding the classification of mental illnesses, he does not endorse nor practice Scientology. Many people and groups who have dissimilar objectives often form associations to achieve common goals, without necessarily subscribing to the total goals of each others groups. Politics is an excellent example; there are gay Republicans and gay Democrats. They both have obviously different underlying political philosophies, yet there are certain goals that they both wish to achieve, so they may unite, specifically to reach their common goal. That doesn't mean they change their underlying political beliefs, and labeling them as idiots does nothing except show the lack of knowledge of the processes and reasons involved of the labeler.
Gee, that's fascinating and all, but I never said Szasz was a Scientologist.

There are no legitimate grounds for psychiatrists to cooperate with Scientology in any endeavor. They are frauds who bring nothing to any discussion of mental health.
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:16 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2